Personality and Duodenal Ulcer Response to Antisecretory Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two groups of duodenal ulcer (DU) patients, responders and nonresponders, have been compared in order to verify if psychological factors are linked to relapse. Responders are defined as those patients who on endoscopy did not present proven relapse during treatment with maintenance doses of antisecretory drugs (cimetidine 400 mg/day, ranitidine 150 mg/day, pirenzepine 50 mg/day) for a period of 12 months after healing of the lesion. Nonresponders were all patients presenting with at least one relapse during treatment with antisecretory drugs. One hundred and twelve DU patients (81 responders, 31 nonresponders) were examined with the Cattell 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF) form C. There were no significant differences between the two groups for age, sex, duration of illness and type of drug treatment. The 16 PF scores of responders and nonresponders were not statistically different except in the case of factor E (dominance), in which the nonresponder subjects scored higher than responder subjects (p less than 0.01). However, when the significance level was corrected for the number of variables involved, the above finding is not considered to be meaningful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".